ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2014
Applicability of universal Bacteroidales genetic marker for microbial monitoring of drinking water sources in comparison to conventional indicators.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Adhesion and Spoilage ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Bacteroides sedimenti sp. nov., isolated from a chloroethenes-dechlorinating consortium enriched from river sediment.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2018Article
- Field study of the composition of greywater and comparison of microbiological indicators of water quality in on-site systems.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Water quality monitoring is essential for the provision of safe drinking water. In this study, we compared a selection of fecal indicators with universal Bacteroidales genetic marker to identify fecal pollution of a variety of drinking water sources. A total of 60 samples were collected from water sources. The microbiological parameters included total coliforms, fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli and fecal streptococci as the fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), Clostridium perfringens and H2S bacteria as alternative indicators, universal Bacteroidales genetic marker as a promising alternative fecal indicator, and Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., and E. coli O157 as pathogenic bacteria. From 60 samples analyzed, Bacteroidales was the most frequently detected indicator followed by total coliforms. However, the Bacteroidales assay failed to detect the marker in nine samples positive for FIB and other alternative indicators. The results of our study showed that the absence of Bacteroidales is not necessarily an evidence of fecal and pathogenic bacteria absence and may be unable to ensure the safety of the water. Further research, however, is required for a better understanding of the use of a Bacteroidales genetic marker as an indicator in water quality monitoring programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25023746What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.